You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Eric Hamp's mature position was that the "North-West IE" (Italic-Celtic-Phrygian according to him) were the first inhabitants of the Hallstatt. He was a specialist of Celtic and one of the most renowned linguists of the 20th and 21st Century.

Iron age Italian populations - including Etruscans and Italic tribes - were very homogeneous and predominantly R1b-U152+. Romans on the other hand autosomally were closer to Aegean populations and Y dna wise were very diverse including R1b-U152, R1b-P312(xU152), R1b-U106, T, G2a, I1, E1b, J2a, J2b and J1 haplogroups.

It's impossible to have a rational discussion about this without the paper in front of us.

If, by "Romans" being more "Aegean" like they mean some samples from Ostia, Rome's biggest port, then that conclusion is just plain stupid.

I can't put it any more clearly than that.

I mean, I know not everybody has a PHD or an IQ of 140+, but for crying out loud if some people don't have the mental capacity to examine these kinds of claims with some degree of intelligence they should just shut up.

Of course, then there are those with agendas or mental health issues who muddy up the waters as well.

Sorry to be so blunt, but I'm losing patience, not, I hasten to add, with you, but with the general level of stupidity and agenda driven content in the hobby as a whole.

You have to define your freaking terms to make sense of all of this. If you don't, even having the samples in hand won't help. The people who built the first huts on the seven hills of Rome are not necessarily exactly the same people who belonged to the various tribes of the Republic, and those people are not necessarily completely similar to the inhabitants of Imperial Rome as defined as the city of Rome itself in the time of Augustus and after.

To think that samples from Ostia, which more than likely might have been mostly merchants or sailors from lots of different parts of the empire, but predominantly perhaps from the east, should serve as the standard genetically for "Romans" is a whole different level of absurdity.

All of that will have to be kept in mind when we have the actual samples, see their isotope values, their burial contexts, where they were found, and their dates.

That isn't to say that I don't think there was steady gene flow from southern Italy north, because I think there was.

I'll post later about some other findings from my book on Northern Italy during Roman times.

I would suggest waiting, unlike "Generalissimo" until, as I said above, we have definite and precise information about where each sample was found, the date, the burial context, and the isotope analysis.

I don't know how many of those samples, if any, come from places like Ostia, but if they do they're not terribly informative about Italian genetics as a whole.

In terms of Italian genetics in general and Southern Italian/Sicilian genetics in particular it's the late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age which interests me more. Did most of the gene flow into Southern Italy/Sicily during that period come by way of the Balkans and Greece, or did some come directly from Anatolia or other places, or both? When did it start to arrive and in what numbers? What were Southern Italians/Sicilians like in the beginning of the first millenium BC before Greek colonization, and what were they like afterwards? Once we know the answers to those questions we'll be in better shape to understand precisely what was going on during the empire and after.

prior to the celtic invasions/migrations there was the calcolitic invasions/migrations. now as italians are heavily R1B paternally and it seems they are maternally J2......is E hiding within J2. forexample did the calcolithic men took the E women ?

I would suggest waiting, unlike "Generalissimo" until, as I said above, we have definite and precise information about where each sample was found, the date, the burial context, and the isotope analysis.

I don't know how many of those samples, if any, come from places like Ostia, but if they do they're not terribly informative about Italian genetics as a whole.

In terms of Italian genetics in general and Southern Italian/Sicilian genetics in particular it's the late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age which interests me more. Did most of the gene flow into Southern Italy/Sicily during that period come by way of the Balkans and Greece, or did some come directly from Anatolia or other places, or both? When did it start to arrive and in what numbers? What were Southern Italians/Sicilians like in the beginning of the first millenium BC before Greek colonization, and what were they like afterwards? Once we know the answers to those questions we'll be in better shape to understand precisely what was going on during the empire and after.

Spot-on questions, that's exactly what we need to know. Do we know when the paper (related to the leaked PCA) is due to get published? By the way, this is not the Moots paper we are awaiting any time now, correct?

The Etruscans are closer to the Northern Italians, and the Romans are closer to the Central and Southern Italians..

Romans in that PCA are definitely closer to Southern Italians. Abruzzesi are genetically Southern Italians even if more northern shifted than southern Italian average. Of course assuming that PCA is accurate.

Spot-on questions, that's exactly what we need to know. Do we know when the paper (related to the leaked PCA) is due to get published? By the way, this is not the Moots paper we are awaiting any time now, correct?

I don't know for sure but I don't think so. The Moots paper, from the little information I have, is centered only on the environs of Rome itself, and doesn't include Etruscans. I think the PCA may be from the paper that I think is coming from Stanford.

My point throughout this discussion has been that people want to talk about what "Romans" were or were not like without defining what they mean by "Roman". I keep trying to get through to them that it has a different meaning through time, and applies to people from different genetic clusters through time. By the end of the Empire practically everyone within its borders would have considered themselves "Romans". The Byzantines considered themselves "Romans" for centuries after that. At what point does the term become meaningless for population genetics purposes, and especially as concerns Italian genetics?

In terms of Republican Era Romans I would be quite surprised if the Republican Era "Romans" were "Aegean" like. I would expect them to be like other members of the Latin League and related groups, which is NOT to say that they were "Gaulish" like. I don't expect even northern Italians of the Republican period to be the same as the Gauls, of, well, Gaul. :)

I wouldn't be at all surprised if inhabitants of many parts of southern Italy were "Aegean like" already during the Roman Republican Era period. I would expect Imperial Era Italians, which is the more appropriate term, in my opinion, even in the northern reaches of the peninsula, to be different from what they were like during the Republic, but the question is, how different? Did the cline still exist, even if less defined? Were the "Collegno" Italians of the late Empire the norm or was there variation? Although even there, not all were "Aegean" like. I'm extremely close to one, and I am not "Aegean" like.

I would remind people that the "leaks", if accurate, say that in Republican Rome the "Romans" were split into two groups, one more "northern" Italian like, and one more "southern" Italian like. Note that none of them are Germanic like. So much for much of 19th and early 20th century anthropology. None plotted with Central Italians. If the papers show I'm on the wrong track, fine. I have no problem with being "slightly" wrong. :)

The darkest red is the "original" Rome.

Note that even the bright red is Rome and her "allies", not considered Romans by the Romans themselves.

Timeline of the conquest of Italy:

That's why the dates for each sample are crucial.

@lynxbythetv (Could you people pick shorter, more recognizable "names"? Sometimes I don't address people by their names just because it's too annoying to reproduce them.)

I don't know for sure but I don't think so. The Moots paper, from the little information I have, is centered only on the environs of Rome itself, and doesn't include Etruscans. I think the PCA may be from the paper that I think is coming from Stanford.

An archaeologist friend of mine confirmed to me that Etruscan samples were sent to various laboratories for autosomal analysis.

And then certainly Stanford has already analyzed some Etruscan samples 4 or 5 years ago.

There are more than one university right now, so I'm guessing more than one study.

Romans in that PCA are definitely closer to Southern Italians. Abruzzesi are genetically Southern Italians even if more northern shifted than southern Italian average. Of course assuming that PCA is accurate.

So it would appear from the PCA. However, that doesn't square with the supposed "leak" that in Republican Rome there were "two" groups: one more Northern Italian like and one more Southern Italian like.